an important victory
transparency and publicity in the so-called. Specialized justice. What exactly, we’ll tell you in a moment – but let’s first trace the chronology of the problem. At the end of 2017, through one of its many Legislative Scodomes, parliament “banned” to publish final effective verdicts in criminal cases. The changes were then voted under The obvious pressure of the prosecution – which, as we have long known, can pass the adoption of any laws it wants, although it does not have a formal right of legal initiative. Here is the time to recall that one of the proposals in the draft new Constitution, launched by GERB last September, was precisely to give such an initiative to the Prosecutor’s Office. That was maybe The most harmful idea
in this arrogant and unfortunate premature ness of a project written on his knees by “the best lawyer of GERB” – i.e. from the anti-legal phenomenon gained popularity in society with the nickname
As a result of these amendments to the Judiciary Act, the Supreme Court of Cassation was practically forbidden to publish its convictions before obtaining “permission” from the Prosecutor’s Office. The logic that this will stop the escapes of the convicted is not even worthy of comment. Famous fugitives from justice, such as the so-called. brothers Galevi and Evelyn Banev (Brendo), probably in their lives have not visited the website of the SCC. Nor was there any need for them to do so. Brendo, for example, did not even appear in a hall of last resort. So here the real — and we would say quite transparent aim — is to make it easier for the prosecution to score points in front of the public. That is, the sentence will be published only after (or if) the prosecutor’s office has secured the entry of the convict to prison. Only then will the prosecutor
He deigned to allow
the court to publish his sentence.
Before and during the adoption of these changes
, a number of respected lawyers
, as well as the judges of the SCC itself, spoke
. However, this did not stop the legislative fervor and momentum of Barney Rubble, then in his capacity as head of a legal committee in parliament. The bigger problem, however, came later. In an effort to show themselves “more Turks than the Turks”, the heads of a number of courts began to interpret the new law quite broadly, or as well as “The Devil Reads the Gospel“Namely, they ordered that no convictions should be published, incl. and in the first and second instances. And this despite the fact that the law clearly states that the ban applies only to final convictions. And since criminal cases of general nature (NOHD) in Bulgaria are necessarily tri-instance, then obviously this cannot apply to the acts of the court of first and second instance. As a striking example in this respect, we will point to the recent effective sentence of Lord of the chicken coop
in the Sea Garden Veselin Mareshki, who together with her motives was published in its entirety on the website of the Court of Appeal Varna.
On Cherkovna Street
Let’s see how things are in
the Specialized Criminal Court.
(SNA). Although it has been in existence since 2012, it was only in the last few years that this vessel gained momentum and set off “with 200” – and this as a result of the
the avalanche extension
of the scope
of its competences
and the types of cases he has the right to hear. That’s how the so-called cases went there. Corruption under “High Levels of Power“. There are no special results in this area so far, if we exclude the verdict against one Sofia Regional MayorWhich, of course, is not from GERB. The judgment against
from GERB, which Ivan Geshev timidly boasted of in July last year at the height of the protests against him, is only conditional and has not entered into force.
Subsequently, the SNA also launched the cases for distraints and precautionary measures, which were traditionally heard by the Sofia City Court and the SAS. This trend is detailed described
by Capital, but at the heart of it all seemed to be the fact that the specialized Geshev blade Angel Kanev unpleasantly hit a stone in the hated Sofia City Court with a request for distraints of the deposed Vasil Bozhkov.
No court, no problem
“As Comrade Gesch would say…” sorry, Stalin. In this case, we simply choose a new, “reliable” court by changing the law and jurisdiction. I think this actually It makes this court extraordinary
, but make it go, because there is no one to refer
the matter to the Constitutional Court
And a few months ago, the SNA was also endowed with new, even more powerful powers. Namely, here the National Assembly envisaged hearing the cases of the new delegated European prosecutors. The reason why there are no problems. If any gerber or any other person of ours is conspicuously consecrated with both hands in the Euro-Meda barrel, there will still have to be a case, there is no way, at least from the best man shame for the “foreigners”, i.e. for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. But with the help of the SNA, we will ensure that the sentence will be light and at most conditional
– just like in Sudjuka.
The technology of crushing cases
Already in the judicial phase it has been worked out by the prosecutor’s office to perfection. Although it is more difficult to sabotage a case, since it is already in court, the prosecution has extensive and valuable experience in this regard – it is enough to recall all the cases against the famous Tsvetanov
, as well as the silently killed by prescription “
“” just a few weeks ago. As for the case against Hristo Bisserov Better not to mention. Of course, the logo turns if and when one of the “bad guys” (read the opposition) has to be hit by misuse of EU funds. Then the prosecution will do the impossible – for example, it will fly in space with a diesel rocket – to achieve a severe sentence. However, the question remains whether and to what extent it will succeed, even in the SNA.
How transparent and accountable is the SNA
Against the backdrop of
of, but also the over-expectations of the SNA,
BIRD He decided to check on his website some of the landmark and high-profile affairs over the years. The results turned out to be puzzling. Based on the “extended” interpretation that we described above, it turned out that
The SNA does not publish not
only convictions but
on your website!! As an example of the second, we took the “sugar case” of Grisha Ganchev – where the acquittal was missing on the court’s website. Which is even stranger in the context of the information that The verdict
a dissenting opinion
. of the presiding judge. As an example of cases with hidden sentences can be pointed out Article
, although there are many more similar hidden acts, as those on the deeds of Zhivko Sudjuka and Rumen Ovcharov. Apart from that, the verdict on the loud case was hidden “The Untouchables“, where Ivan Geshev had an active participation. This case was also the subject of separate material in
BIRD asked Marieta Raykova, President of the SNA, about the hidden sentences. A few days later we received a reply to the effect that the law prohibits their publication (which is not actually true for the first and second instances), but At the request of journalists There was no problem in providing them. Indeed, the next day after receiving Judge Raykova’s answer, we again checked the website of the SNA. The verdicts in the cases mentioned by us (but only on them) have already been published. For the sake of transparency and
In the spirit of collegiality
, we provide a short list below for the convenience of those interested:
However, it is noteworthy, for example, that in the case of Grisha Ganchev cannot be found the above-mentioned
of Judge Lilia Georgieva, nor on what it is based. Thus, the question remains open as to why this already announced dissenting opinion remains hidden in the final judicial act.
Meanwhile, with Ushev
Things are a little different under the umbrella of specialized justice – the Specialized Criminal Court of Appeal (SACC). It stands out that acquittals are also not published there – for example,
of former Deputy Minister Hristo Angelichin, who is already
The prosecutor’s office for 100,000 leva. In this respect, the SNA and the SACC are “in solidarity” with each other, although this is misunderstood solidarity. To put it bluntly, the reasons why the prosecutor’s office has “screwed up” are hidden – or have brought charges for acts that were not originally composed!
With the SACC, however, things go even further
: there lie specific definitions (not even sentences or decisions) in specific cases relating to, generally speaking, “
the enemies of the people
“. That is, with people and companies, designated and appointed in advance by the Attorney General and its offshoots for criminals — often complete with copious and irrigation dispersal in the media space of pretrial material. Something that has become Trademark of the Prosecutor’s Office Since Geshev came to power. For example, for
BIRD He found out about a total of at least 4 definitions that are hidden. For Bobokov there is a definition for which we have information that concerns
distraint of a company share
at the request of
. There are three definitions for Gebrev that concern Distraints of his accounts and translations to EMCO, which is his(!) own company. The attachments in this case were imposed at the request of the SANS. However, the content and motives of these acts of the SACC remain a mystery – and we can only guess about them. According to information from BIRD,
interest in these (and other hidden) acts of the SACC have also been shown by colleagues from other media – but have not received
any answers to their inquiries
. That is why we find it pointless in turn to ask.
It is obvious that the court of Georgi Ushev keeps stubbornly silent on the subject. Perhaps because the motives of these acts are something like “because that’s what the prosecution says and
so wants”, so “
who are we to contradict her
“. At the same time, Georgi Ushev himself has not been able to write for 13 months. the decision
in the notorious
case and its OCG. We can assume with a high degree of probability that whenever this decision comes out, it will also not be published on the website of the SACC. So much on the issue of transparency and accountability of the highest instance of specialised justice.
Щом сте стигнали дотук, вероятно вече си задавате въпроса как се финансира този журналистически проект.
От създаването си BIRD се финансираше от подаяния в нашето журналистическо чекмедже.
Но на чекмеджето му мина времето. Даже прокуратурата затвори онова Чекмедже, знаете кое…
Нашето финансиране влиза в крак с епохата. Фондонабиращата ни кампания вече се казва
Дарявай за BIRD и мятай павета в блатото с корумпирани политици и други тарикати.
Те тайно премятат пари от твоя джоб в своя. Те размятат безнаказано лукса си пред очите на всички. Няма кой да ги накаже ако се надяваш на държавата.
Мятай, за да ги накажеш ти. Да дариш за разследващите журналисти е гаранция, че гадостите, с които силните на деня те замерят, ще им се върнат.
Можеш да метнеш веднъж, за да ти олекне!
Но по-добре е да мяташ редовно всеки месец и да се чувстваш трайно удовлетворен.
А най-добре е да доведеш приятели и да мятаме редовно заедно в екип. С мощен залп!
*За кръстник на новата ни фондонабираща кампания избрахме другарката Ваня. Благодарим й за вдъхновението!
До момента имаме 411 активни редовни дарители, които осигуряват 5697.34 € месечно. Нашата цел е те да станат 1,000.
Събери се с приятели и мятайте заедно с BIRD. Лесно е.
1. Регистрирай се 2. Създай отбор 3. Създай свой профил 4. Покани приятели
Или се включи в някой отбор:
Lightning network: firstname.lastname@example.org
This post is also available in: Български (Bulgarian)